Dear Brad Walker,
In message CAPKZHbU1wKxJZ82O9v54Lct482o7MfcN4Yq_WniwL-TB8_-cGg@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Why not just use JTAG? We are doing new processor design, so it's not defined if the system will even have a JTAG interface. There are lots of systems that do not have a JTAG interface.
I have no information what the target for your new processor might be; there is such systems that go to basically a single big customer / a single, highly specific use case, and there are those that are intended for general use - the more use cases the better. If you want to make your system easy to use for a big grouyp of people, then make sure that standard debug tools work. Include JTAG, and make sure it works with standard tools like the Abatron BDI2000/3000, Lauterbach Trace32 and OpenOCD etc.
Why not use use objdump? We are in the process of porting binutils, so I currently don't have an objdump to use. I do have a manual disassembly routine that we created in h/w design to help us. But, until binutils has been ported, there is no objdump.
Well, without a working binut=ils you cannot build U-Boot anyway, so you probably have to wait for that.
I think the big issue that is confusing to me is why is BedBug still in U-Boot? Should i try and graft my work into BedBug? If so, then I'm happy
BedBug is strill there, because it was useful for some (at some point of time), and it does not hurt to have it. I think the actual number of users is epsilon.
to do the work and contribute it back to the group. But, if not, then I'll just go ahead implement the work independently.
I'd recommend to save the efforts, and rather help the guys who are working on binutils. This is probably better invested time, then.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk